Do the revelations about this WH hurt or help the liar in chief in waiting - aka Hillary?

We all know how the lib media and political crowd will go all out to surround her with moats, booby traps, mines, concrete bunkers and a division of lawyers armed with AK 15 assault rifles (it's politically correct to use these weapons to protect a major liberal ).

Of course Hillary will be less brash but this is what 2016 will be about.Women can break through ceilings.....

****Gender war backfires as men ditch Australia PM

Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, pictured in Sydney, on April 4, 2013. Gillard's attempt to marginalise the opposition by claiming it would change abortion rights and sideline women has backfired with a poll on Monday showing male voters are deserting her. Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, pictured in Sydney, on April 4, 2013. Gillard's attempt to marginalise the opposition by claiming it would change abortion rights and sideline women has backfired with a poll on Monday showing male voters are deserting her.

Australian opposition leader, Tony Abbott, pictured in Nowra on the south coast of New South Wales state, on January 9, 2013. PM Julia Gillard, the country's first female leader, last week reignited a simmering gender war by saying in a speech that government would be dominated by "men in blue ties" should Abbott assume office in September elections. Australian opposition leader, Tony Abbott, pictured in Nowra on the south coast of New South Wales state, on January 9, 2013. PM Julia Gillard, the country's first female leader, last week reignited a simmering gender war by saying in a speech that government would be dominated by "men in blue ties" should Abbott assume office in September elections.

AFP - Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's attempt to marginalise the opposition by claiming it would change abortion rights and sideline women has backfired with a poll on Monday showing male voters are deserting her.

Gillard, the country's first female leader, last week reignited a simmering gender war by saying in a speech that government would be dominated by "men in blue ties" should opposition leader Tony Abbott assume office in September elections.

"It's a decision about whether, once again, we will banish women's voice from the core of our political life," said the embattled prime minister in the speech, desperate to shore up waning support.

"We don't want to live in an Australia where abortion again becomes the political plaything of men who think they know better."

But the ploy has backfired with a poll in Fairfax Media showing male voters are abandoning Gillard and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and there is little sign of more women getting behind her.

The telephone poll of 1,400 voters found that since the last survey a month ago Labor's standing has continued to slide, led entirely by a seven percent exodus of men.

Under a two-party vote, the conservative opposition would romp home in the September 14 elections with 57 percent (up three points) to 43 percent (down three points) for Labor.

Labor's primary vote, which strips out the support of minor parties, has slumped to just 29 percent with the opposition at 47 percent -- a huge lead which would wipe out 35 Labor MPs, the poll showed.

Pollster John Stirton said the swing against Labor occurred only among men.

"Labor's primary vote was down seven points among men and up one point among women. The ALP two-party vote fell 10 points among men and rose two points among women,'' he said.

But the poll, taken between Thursday and Saturday, showed that if Gillard's arch-rival Kevin Rudd was returned as Labor leader, their primary vote would be a much more competitive 40 percent to the opposition's 42 percent.

Rudd was ruthlessly ousted by Gillard in a 2010 leadership coup but he remains hugely popular.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph reported Monday that Rudd has told colleagues he will not challenge Gillard again unless key cabinet ministers support the move after he failed in a bid to unseat her in 2012.

The unmarried Gillard has often been the subject of jibes about her gender, clothing and private life and she won global acclaim last year for comments on misogyny, claiming she was sick and tired of dealing with alleged sexism from Abbott and the opposition.****

I must confess that there is quite a lot I like about Mike Huckabee and the way he handles himself on his talk show on FOX.

I'm sensing Marco Rubio to be too young.

Rand Paul seems to be maturing and has my attention, but may still be too much the bomb thrower and too unelectable.

Ted Cruz has my attention. High IQ and a precise mind from his superb legal background enable him to make his case without glitches in logic and consistency. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any executive experience, and a lot of his life was in the law which can generate a very incomplete sense of how the world works.

In almost hysteria, a politco journalist asks, what if Hillary did not run? This is a rare admission on the left that the Dem bench is empty.

“We would be at sea in a lifeboat with no food, no water, and no land in sight,” said one veteran Democratic operative who has worked on presidential campaigns, and who, like most people interviewed for this story, asked for anonymity to speak candidly about the former first lady. “There is no Plan B.”..."Such assessments wouldn’t sit well with Democrats who are looking at 2016 as the understudies to Clinton – Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Vice President Joe Biden, to name a few."

DENNIS MILLER: "Rand Paul and Chris Christie, I hate to see Fat Man and Little Boy quibble like this. I mean, as Roger Ailes says, you can not shoot inside the tent. And when the 400 pound guy is telling you you bring home too much bacon, you know it's gone absolutely mad. And yeah, if they're going to keep shooting inside the tent like this, you ought to just get the fur-like pantsuit ready for Hillary, because Big Mama is going to be in that inaugural parade, and Huma Abedin is going to be the next chief of staff. And ironically, chief of staff is the name her old man is using on the internet this week."http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/01/dennis_miller_on_the_feud_between_rand_paul_and_chris_christie.html

The first two offerings were popular delicacies at the state fair. The others are Republicans already jockeying over what is expected to be a wide-open 2016 presidential race, barely nine months after the latest one concluded and more than two years before any party primaries would start.Iowa Early Birds

First-year U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), making his second trip to Iowa this summer, addressed a forum of evangelicals in Ames, Iowa, Saturday.

Mr. Cruz, a first-year U.S. senator from Texas, on Saturday made his second trip to Iowa this summer. He and Mr. Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, addressed a forum of Iowa evangelicals here. They were joined by real-estate developer turned reality-television star Donald Trump. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a fellow Republican, was in Des Moines a week earlier to attend an event organized by a prominent GOP donor in the state.

Democrats looking to 2016 aren't advertising their intent as openly because President Barack Obama has more than three years left in his term, and because prospective candidates are waiting for a decision from the putative front-runner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who hasn't made her intentions known. That said, Vice President Joe Biden caused a stir late Sunday when a representative confirmed he will speak next month at Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin's annual steak fry, a traditional platform for White House hopefuls.

Enlarge ImageimageimageAssociated Press

Former Sen. Rick Santorum addressing a forum of evangelicals over the weekend in Ames, Iowa.

Meanwhile, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who had made overtures to the Iowa delegation during last year's Democratic National Convention, will be headlining a fundraiser for the North Iowa Democrats later this week, making her the first potential Democratic candidate to visit the state this year. Ms. Klobuchar has played down her interest in the race but hasn't dismissed the prospect of a bid entirely.

The 2016 race really is in full swing, as presidential contenders and activists from both parties swarmed into Iowa over the weekend. Patrick O'Connor has more. Photo: AP.

Iowa, traditionally the first state to hold a presidential contest, often receives early visits from hopefuls, but even some veteran operatives are surprised by what is under way. Mitt Romney, after losing his bid for the Republican nomination in 2008, didn't return to Iowa until March 2010, roughly a year before declaring his intent to be the GOP's 2012 nominee. Likewise, Mr. Obama's first major Iowa appearance didn't come until September 2006 at the Harkin steak fry, several months before he officially announced his presidential campaign.

Both parties will have open nominating races in 2016 that could determine their overall direction. The emerging GOP field is set for a spirited debate over core issues such as national security and social policy. The Democratic race, meanwhile, could become an implicit test of whether Mrs. Clinton can reclaim the party from a younger generation.

"We always get candidates who come out early to dip their toe in the water, but it's nothing like the intensity this time around," said Chuck Laudner, a prominent Iowa conservative who shuttled Mr. Santorum around the state ahead of last year's caucuses. "The conversation about 2016 has already started."

For the candidates, these early courtship rituals aren't meant to lock in support but rather to signal interest in the race and start talks with the activists and officials whose support represents the scaffolding on which presidential campaigns are built. Scott Brennan, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said potential candidates don't need to be in the state now, given the broader party dynamics at play. But "people will start coming," he said. Mr. Biden accepted the invitation to speak at the Harkin event after he was unable to attend last year, the Biden representative said.

While Mrs. Clinton keeps Democrats waiting, Republicans can barely conceal their eagerness to run. The prospect of a crowded field has some potential candidates already working to carve out an identifiable network of supporters.

"We're talking to folks," said Mr. Santorum at the end of a three-day swing through the state, more than a year after his unsuccessful bid in the GOP nomination battle eventually won by Mitt Romney. "If you're going to have a decision to make, you've got to do some things in preparation for making that decision, and we're certainly doing those things."

In Iowa, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another Republican pondering a bid, would inherit a robust network of support built by his dad, former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, including top officials in the state Republican Party.

"This is all an existing infrastructure," said Craig Robinson, a former political director of the state party who runs the popular website, theiowarepublican.com. "There is really no other place for those people to go."

Other potential candidates have steered clear of Iowa and early primary states. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio headlined a fundraiser for Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad shortly after the 2012 election but hasn't been back this year.

Mr. Cruz's appearance Saturday, by contrast, was his second in a matter of weeks. He will be back in October to headline a fundraiser, an aide said, and will head to New Hampshire, the site of another traditional early contest, later this month. During his first trip to Iowa earlier this summer, the Texan addressed an influential group of pastors and met with other activists and operatives in the lobby of the Des Moines Marriott, a standard hotbed of political activity. He was scheduled to meet with a group of top donors at the state fair this past weekend, but travel delays forced him to cancel.

His top competition for applause may have been his father, Rafael Cruz, a pastor who stirred up the audience with tales of coming to the U.S. from Cuba in the wake of that country's Communist revolution.

Asked by reporters about his frequent trips to Iowa, the younger Mr. Cruz joked that he traveled north because "it's hot in Texas right now." Pressed further, he said, "I am traveling the country, working to build a grass-roots army" to help with his goal of cutting funding for Mr. Obama's new health-care law.

Mr. Santorum, who won last year's Iowa caucus and is making his first visit to the state since last year's election, has made no secret of his interest in another White House run. "I'm open to it," the former senator told reporters over the weekend.

Mr. Santorum's Iowa travels carried echoes of his 2012 effort. He again toured the state in Mr. Laudner's Ram Truck and even had lunch at a Pizza Ranch, the local chain where he held countless meet-and-greets during his previous race. In Ames, he sounded a familiar blue-collar theme, prodding Republicans to shower more attention on middle-class workers and not "just celebrate the job creators."

Many Iowans in attendance, which included many activists, seemed unfazed by this early positioning. "That's just part of the game," said Syvilla Hewitt, 85, of Fredericksburg, who supported Ron Paul in 2012.

How to beat Hillary: Nominate someone who has accomplished things Published by: Dan Calabrese

Exploding the myth.

If you read this column at all, you're familiar with my core theme concerning Hillary Clinton. Her entire political persona is a fraud, the notion of her as a plausible president of the United States exposed as mythical when you look for actual accomplishments on her record and find that there simply isn't anything there. Hillary's resume appears impressive until you realize a) she didn't achieve anything of note in the positions she held; and b) she only got them in the first place for the purpose of positioning herself to run for president.

Disagree if you like, but I think it should work like this: First you accomplish things in other positions, then you look at what you've done at realize that maybe you could be an effective president too, so you run. In Hillary's case, it was: I want to be president so I will position myself to do this by attaining other positions and then I will toss out my resume and I cannot be denied!

If the Republican Party can see this for what it is, you would think that would not be terribly difficult to run against. All you do is continually hammer home the truth that the image is false and the substance is non-existent. (I'm going to avoid the emperor/clothes metaphor in this case because for all I know you just ate.) From there, it shouldn't be hard to add in the history of dishonesty and self-serving tripe, but it really starts with the fact that this is a woman who has never done anything that would recommend her as a candidate for president of the United States.

But if the GOP wants to take that tact, and it should, there's potentially a very big problem: You can't attack Hillary for never having achieved anything if you nominate someone about whom you can say much the same.

There is more than one faction within the Republican Party that seeks nominees solely on the basis of ideological expression, which is to say, I agree with what that person "stands for" so that's who I support. Senator X supports spending cuts, tax cuts and border security, so I support Senator X. It may be solely based on things Senator X has said, in spite of the fact that Senator X has never done anything to make any of this happen. If you nominate someone like that because you're satisfied he/she is a "true conservative" and that's all that matters to you, you just made it a lot more difficult to stand there and say to Hillary, "I've accomplished A, B, C and D for the people in my career in public service, and here are the tangible benefits of these achievements. What have you ever done?"

And that's a problem, because that is exactly how you beat Hillary. You have to attack her weakness, and her weakness is that her entire career has been about resume-building for the purpose of running for president, and not about accomplishing anything for the public.

If you were to nominate, say, former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (and I could name any number of current or former Republican governors, but Daniels is the example I randomly chose), he could tout the successful implementation of tax and budget policies, as well as things like the passage of a right-to-work law, and demonstrate clearly how much Indiana residents have benefited. You could do the same with Scott Walker in Wisconsin or Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. You could do it with Rick Perry in Texas if people didn't get so worked up about a momentary brain freeze he had in a debate.

(That raises another issue, by the way: When we make Perry's brain freeze, or Jindal's poorly delivered State of the Union response, more important than what they've accomplished in office, we play right into the hands of people who create successful candidates via mythical images, because they elevate political performance art above real achievement, and that is the very thing that has created the Hillary myth.)

By the way, in a half-term as a Alaska governor, Sarah Palin could tout far more achievement than Hillary has ever had.

Nominating a truly accomplished public servant, and setting up the campaign as My Achievements vs. Your Myth, would not only resonate with the public, but given what we know about Hillary, it would probably inspire a series of laughable claims on her part - claims that could easily be disproven and thus do even more to shatter the myth.This is the best way to run against her because it attacks her greatest weakness. But it can only work if the Republican nominee is a person of real achievement, not just someone who says the things you like but has never done any of them.

A new edition of Dan's book "Powers and Principalities" is now available in hard copy and e-book editions. Follow all of Dan's work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

Christie Lays Out His Plan for GOP RevivalSounding Like a 2016 Candidate, New Jersey Governor Advocates a Pragmatic Form of Conservatism

Article Video Comments (118)

more in Politics & Policy »

smaller Larger

facebook twitter google plus linked in

Email Print

Save ↓ More

By NEIL KING JR. CONNECT

BOSTON—Gov. Chris Christie, building on the impression that he is giving a serious look at a run for the White House, used a speech to leaders of the Republican Party on Thursday to argue that his electoral success in New Jersey offers the GOP a model for how to win support from women, minority and blue-state voters.

Mr. Christie told the Republican National Committee, in a private address punctuated often by laughter and applause, that GOP candidates should hew to conservative economic themes and the promise of pragmatic governance. That argument comes as the party is debating how central a role its opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage should be within the party.

Enlarge ImageimageimageAssociated Press

Gov. Chris Christie told a GOP gathering that his New Jersey success is a model for the party's future. An attendee paraphrased him: 'I'm going to run in 2016, and I've demonstrated a winning formula. And if you want to win and don't care about ideology, I'm your candidate.'

The one-term governor, who is up for re-election this year, pointed to polls and some recent endorsements to show he is winning support among women and certain Latino and African-American groups, all constituencies that have tilted heavily toward Democrats in national elections.

"You don't have to sacrifice your base voters to win Latino votes," he said, according to a recording of the closed-door speech reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "You don't have to sacrifice your base voters to win a share of the African-American vote."

He contrasted his long-running feuds with the state's public-sector unions with his friendliness toward the private-sector unions, noting that he had won the endorsement of 24 building-trade unions.

"We have an opportunity as a party to drive a wedge in the union movement," he said. "And the laboratory where that is happening right now is in my state."

At the same time, the governor made subtle jabs at some in his party, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who told the RNC last year that the GOP had to "stop being the party of stupid."video Christie in 2016: Will He or Won't He?3:54

Gov. Chris Christie used a speech to leaders of the Republican Party on Thursday to argue that his electoral success in New Jersey offers the GOP a model for how to win support from women, minority and blue-state voters. Neil King has more. Photo: Getty Images.

"I am not going to be one of those people who are going to call our party stupid," Mr. Christie said. "I'm not going to be one of those people who are navel gazing. It's nine months now since the national election. Time to get over it."

Last month Mr. Christie also poked at Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and other libertarian Republicans who have criticized the expanding scope of the federal surveillance programs. In his July remarks, he dismissed the criticism as both "dangerous" and part of an "esoteric, intellectual" debate within the party.

Speaking in Boston, where the GOP's national brass have gathered for their summer meeting, Mr. Christie told the party that it had to eschew needless debates and do all it could to win elections.

"I think we have some folks who think we have to be college professors," he said. "For our ideas to win we have to govern. And if we don't win we don't govern."

"I am going to do anything I need to do to win," he said, exhibiting impatience with debates within the party over foreign policy, social issues and legislative tactics.

Some in the audience took exception to the view that the RNC shouldn't promote policies or take stances on issues. Steve Scheffler, a social conservative committeeman from Iowa, said it remains "an important role for the RNC to put national congressmen and politicians on notice as to what the grass-roots is thinking."

Mr. Christie has held leads of 30 points or more in multiple surveys over his Democratic challenger in this year's election, state Sen. Barbara Buono.

The governor was essentially tied with Ms. Buono among Hispanic voters in a Quinnipiac University poll this month, after losing Hispanics by a 2-to-1 margin in 2009, when he was first elected. Ms. Buono held a large lead among black voters in the survey, though Mr. Christie appeared to have made substantial gains among those voters since 2009.

Mr. Christie, who took no questions either from the audience or from a group of reporters outside the ballroom, made no direct reference to whether he is looking to run for president in 2016. But several in attendance felt he left no doubt on that score.

Steve Munisteri, chairman of the Texas Republican Party, boiled Mr. Christie's remarks down to this: "I took all that to mean, 'I'm going to run in 2016, and I've demonstrated a winning formula. And if you want to win and don't care about ideology, I'm your candidate.' "

Linda Ackerman, the GOP committeewoman from California, said Mr. Christie's "speech today was much more impressive" than the one he delivered last August at the party's convention in Tampa.

"There is nothing wrong with our party," Mr. Christie said. To a loud outburst of applause he urged the RNC to focus entirely on the mechanics of "electing Republicans."

"We are not a debating society," he told the crowd of several hundred in the ballroom. "We are a political operation that wants to win."

I am also unpersuaded by Christie but he certainly is one of the ones to watch. A case I made last time around was to look for a two term Governor - of a purple state. That didn't lead us to any great candidates but it was a former Governor who won the nomination. Most of the other candidates of current interest, who are perhaps better on the issues, lack executive experience, as did our current President.

In his feud with Rand Paul, Christie was perhaps right on the policy of security first but tone deaf I thought on the liberty and privacy concerns involved.

In that feud and with his hurricane courtship with Obama, there is an ego involved, putting himself first. That can be good and bad in politics.

(This is from a conservative, Paul Mirengoff on Powerline, who ripped Sen. Rubio endlessly on immigration.)

Marco Rubio and Rand Paul both questioned John Kerry and his sidekicks during yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria. Rubio was very skeptical about the president’s idea of attacking the Assad regime; Paul was adamantly opposed to it.

They were coming from different places. Rubio said he favors taking out the Assad regime, though he acknowledged the risks of doing so. Paul wants a “hands off of Syria.”

But the contrast I want to discuss is the contrast in presentation.

Rubio was organized and analytical — more so, probably, than any other Committee member — laying out our three broad options for proceeding. Paul was all over the place, asking one rhetorical question after another in a rapid fire manner.

Moreover, Rubio had a clear position on each of the options he laid out. Paul had no answers to his own questions. He claimed the answers are “unknowable.”

His was argument by throwing up hands — since there’s so much uncertainty, we shouldn’t act. The obvious fallacy is that we also don’t “know” what the result of inaction will be.

If Rubio and Paul seek the presidency, they will be debating each other in about a year. I won’t vote for either, but my money in the debates will be on Rubio.

Paul’s act will appeal to his father’s base, and probably a bit further than that. But unless Paul becomes more of a match for Rubio when it comes to organization and analysis, the Republican rank-and-file probably will be considerably more impressed by the Senator from Florida than by his rival from Kentucky.

I too find substantial elements of intellectual sloppiness in Paul e.g. his claim that the Constitution requires approval for what Baraq proposes here-- what about the War Powers Act? I'm not saying that I have the answer here, I don't, but I think he should address the point.

Rubio continues to impress me as too young, and susceptible to getting rolled (e.g. immigration "reform"), but I am glad to read of your account of his preparation and comportment here.

I would also draw attention to Cruz. Amongst the three of them, he has impressed me the most with expressing good guiding principles without making sloppy, inadvertent, or over the top comments that can later come back to bite him as sound bit.

I too find substantial elements of intellectual sloppiness in Paul e.g. his claim that the Constitution requires approval for what Baraq proposes here-- what about the War Powers Act? I'm not saying that I have the answer here, I don't, but I think he should address the point.

Rubio continues to impress me as too young, and susceptible to getting rolled (e.g. immigration "reform"), but I am glad to read of your account of his preparation and comportment here.

I would also draw attention to Cruz. Amongst the three of them, he has impressed me the most with expressing good guiding principles without making sloppy, inadvertent, or over the top comments that can later come back to bite him as sound bit.

Agree on all points.

Rand Paul will be the anti-interventionist of the group and that view will likely have quite a bit of appeal coming into 2016 depending on events and what stumbles the others make.

It is an open question as to whether Rubio can recover with conservatives from his immigration reform debacle. I think he can, and has the most charisma, best communication skills and most crossover appeal of those likely to run.

Ted Cruz would arguably be the President of the group, if elected. Principled, fearless, and as you say, not prone to sloppy, over the top comments.

Add Paul Ryan to the group and we have an impressive amount of talent with no executive experience. Chris Christie has that (and Jindal, and perhaps others).

George Will ripped Chris Christie for being Chris Christie today:

He should heed another politician who had a flair for fighting. “Being powerful,” Margaret Thatcher said, “is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Long Island Congressman Peter King has thrown his hat in the 2016 presidential ring.

A good addition to the field. Rep. Peter King was Chairman of the United States House Committee on Homeland Security, has served 20 years in the House. If you are Republican from NY, the next step up for elected office is President.

(On first read, I had him confused with Rep Steve King, a leader in anti-amnesty, who declined to run for the open Senate seat in Iowa.)

Rep King was on Hannity yesterday and they had a knock down ground pummel fight over the strategy of a military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons. I don't necessarily agree with King's conclusion that in the long run we should act militarily but I love his speaking style. He is a gentleman and speaks coherently convincingly and projects commitment to the interests of Americans and not just partisan spin.

Time will tell if he has what it takes. I am not sure about his domestic economic philosophy as much since we usually hear him speak of security issues.

I was not happy with the way he railed against the Republican house when they balked at the NJ - NY hurricane Sandy bill shoved to the Feds - similar to Christie. OTOH one can certainly argue it is his job to fight tooth and nail for his constituency.

The results of the reelection attempts of Governors John Hickenlooper, Democrat in Colorado and Scott Walker, Republican in Wisconsin, will play a role in determining what cast of characters will be competing for high office in 2016. Chris Christie will presumably be a second term Governor in a politically divided state by then as well.

Dear Friend,You and I must win the White House in 2016! That’s why I implore you to sign the petition urging Dr. Ben Carson to run for President of the United States.Please sign right now. Why? Here are 3 reasons...• Ben Carson will win. In fact, when I explain, you’ll understand why he is the only candidate who is sure to win. • Ben Carson will heal America. As President he will heal America and unite us as one people working together to achieve the American dream. • Ben Carson is a Tea Party conservative. He has supported the Tea Party since it began and he has practical, commonsense solutions to the problems that plague our land.

Why is Ben Carson Sure to Win?

In 2011, internal polls showed that Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain was backed by 40% of black Americans.Mr. Cain was well liked, but Dr. Carson is a national hero in the black community.

If Herman Cain could poll 40% of the black vote running against a black candidate, just imagine what percent of the black vote Dr. Ben Carson would receive running against Hillary Clinton or any other far left white Democrat!

I believe Ben Carson will win more than 50% of the African American vote.

But, if Ben Carson receives just 20% of the black vote, no Democrat candidate for President, black or white, can win the White House.

That’s right, just 20% of the black vote!

And, the Democrats know it. They know that their grasp on power is hanging by the thread of the lie that all conservatives are racists.

The election of Ben Carson would create a sea change in American politics. It would permanently dismantle the Democrat coalition that gives them victory year after year.The end of far left Democrat Party dominance...

In a head-to-head contest with Hillary Clinton, there’s just no way that Ben Carson will receive less than 40% of the black vote.

But, the Republican establishment is uncomfortable with Dr. Carson because he is a conservative, Tea Party Republican. They want another establishment Republican as their presidential nominee.

And, if the GOP nominates another establishment Republican, Hillary will win.

The nomination of Dr. Ben Carson is our sure path to victory in 2016.

But, Just Winning Isn’t Enough!

We must elect a man who will not settle for politics as usual.

We must elect a man who is 100% committed to the United States Constitution, and to the principles of freedom set forth by the Founders; a man who will insist on a balanced budget, and who is not a captive of political correctness. In short, a man with common sense.

And, we must elect a man who has the courage to stand up to the President of the United States and tell him to his face that Obamacare is a disaster that must be repealed, just as Dr. Carson did at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Dr. Benjamin Carson is That Man!

This is where Dr. Carson stands on the important issues of our day. If you stand with him, then please sign this petition now.

• National Debt. Cut government spending by 10% each year, across the board, until the budget is balanced! • Obamacare. Repeal it! Replace it with a free market health savings account.• Taxes. Make it flat and make sure that everyone has skin in the game. Everyone pays.• Abortion. End it now! It is barbaric.• Illegal Immigration. Listen to the American people, secure our borders. End it. • Redistribution of Income. Stop it. It’s un-American.• Welfare. It not only encourages self-destructive behavior, it is a trap. Replace it with a truly compassionate, free market approach that enables those on welfare to gain prosperity through employment and entrepreneurship.• Judges. Appoint judges committed to the US Constitution.• Political Correctness. It is dangerous. It hinders progress and divides our nation.• Right to Keep & Bear Arms. It’s a vital part of the our Bill of Rights! End of story!• Democrats and Republicans. Both have been part of the problem. America first!

The most important reason to support Ben Carson...

Dr. Carson is the only man who can heal and unite Americans - black, white, Hispanic; men, women; employer, employee; young, old.Only once before, during the Civil War, were Americans as divided as they are today.

Dr. Carson will end the rancor, the distrust, the divide that has been crassly exploited by the leftists who control the Democratic Party. He will unite us as one great nation.And, Ben Carson is a proud and unrepentant American!

"...there is no country I’d rather be a citizen of and call home than America. Where else but in this land of opportunity are people given so much freedom to pursue their dreams, with the potential to bring out the best in everyone?”

Ben Carson is a winning candidate! But, will he run?

Almost certainly! He has made it clear he will run if asked, if drafted...

This is what he said to a New York Times reporter when asked if he was considering a run for President...

“Certainly if a year and a half went by and there was no one on the scene and people are still clamoring, I would have to take that into consideration. I would never turn my back on my fellow citizens.”

Dr. Carson is just waiting to hear from you and me!

He agrees with the Founders’ idea of citizen statesmen serving their country, and that’s why he believes he must be called to serve by American citizens before being entitled to run.

Are You Ready to Clamor?!

If you want to win in 2016 and you want to end the racial divide, and elect a genuine conservative as President, then please join me in clamoring for Ben Carson today.Please sign the Run, Ben, Run! petition today.

Dr. Carson is waiting to hear from you!

Let Dr. Carson know that you want him to run for President in 2016.

Ben Carson will run if we send him hundreds of thousands of petitions urging him to run for President. So won’t you...

Please sign your petition today!

And, when you do so, won’t you please give this effort your most generous financial support? This is a national campaign. We need your dollars now to start organizing, especially in the early primary states.

We must generate news and show Dr. Carson that he has national support by placing billboards in the early primary states and, early in 2014, start running national radio advertising, to be followed by national television advertising.

Your gift of $35 or more today will help pay for a field organization that will work to put Ben Carson on the ticket in every primary state.

Early dollars are critical to success!

Your early support of $35 or $50 or $100 or even $1,000 or more is worth multiples of that amount next year.

Don’t forget, the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee is a Super PAC and that means we can accept contributions of any amount from individuals, partnerships and corporations.

Establishment Republicans are already running hard and they have deep financial pockets. They are nice people, but they are not conservatives like you and me. Their nominee lost the last two elections for President and they are sure to lose again.

And, of course, Hillary Clinton is trying her best to match Barack Obama’s billion dollar campaign.

But, you and I can nominate and elect a man the Founders would be proud of, a man dedicated to the US Constitution and to fiscal responsibility. You and I must put our efforts and our dollars behind Ben Carson.

Won’t you please strike a blow for victory in 2016, and for freedom, by donating to the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee today?Sincerely,

John Philip Sousa, IVNational ChairmanP.S. Don’t just sit back and let the Republican Establishment pick the next GOP nominee! You can change the future. My great-grandfather was proud to be an American and I can guarantee you that he would be among the first to put his name on the petition that clamors for Ben Carson to run for President. That’s why I hope and pray that you will join this crusade to save America by signing the Run, Ben, Run! petition, and by donating at least $35 to this crucial draft effort. God bless you and God bless America!

Not great analysis, but not much worse than anyone else's picks. Tomorrow is Chris Christie Day. Marco Rubio's stock is currently down because of the immigration fiasco. (I would not rule him out!) The attacks on Ted Cruz perhaps help Rand Paul to look more electable. I don't see Scott Walker as Presidential but if he wins tomorrow it will be a third win in a deeply divided, heartland state. Santorum did not make their list.

(My list today would keep Pence and Walker as the dark horses, and Christie, Cruz, Rubio and Rand Paul as the contenders.)

Below we rank the 10 candidates most likely to wind up as the Republican presidential nominee in three years’ time. Enjoy!

10. Mike Pence: Looking for a dark horse? Try the Indiana governor. He’s a gifted communicator, liked by social and fiscal conservatives and not part of the Washington establishment.

9. Paul Ryan: There appears to be a significant dialing back of Ryan’s interest in a presidential run from even a few months ago. And, as several Republicans noted to us, the Wisconsin congressman’s really not doing much to build the beginnings of a presidential bid.

8. John Kasich: The Ohio governor needs to win reelection before he or his people will seriously entertain the possibility of another run for president. But let’s say Kasich wins. He’s a two-term governor of a Midwestern swing state who spent time in Washington — a long time ago — in Congress as the head of the House Budget Committee. That’s not a bad starting place.

7. Bobby Jindal: Several people we talked to suggested that we drop the Louisiana governor below Kasich in our rankings. But Jindal has the next year to continue to organize a presidential bid, while Kasich needs to keep both eyes on his reelection. That’s enough for us to give Jindal a slight edge. Jindal is quite clearly trying to position himself as the “ideas guy” in the field, also known as the Newton Leroy Gingrich Memorial Slot.

6. Marco Rubio: The problem for the senator from Florida is that his work to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill through the Senate has damaged him within the party base — and, because the legislation remains mired in the House, he has nothing to show for it. Sign of the times? A poll by WMUR in New Hampshire showed Rubio in sixth place in the state’s primary field, tied with Rick Santorum. Oomph.

5. Jeb Bush: The holding pattern continues. If he runs, Bush may replace Christie as the Clinton figure in the field. But no one knows what he is going to do — and he isn’t talking much about it.

4. Scott Walker: The Wisconsin governor is in a similar position to Kasich. He has a very strong case to make for 2016 if he can get through his 2014 reelection race. Walker has proved himself — in his 2010 election and his 2011 recall election — to be a very able politician, so we have our doubts about Democratic claims that he may be vulnerable next November.

3. Ted Cruz: If the Iowa caucuses were held today, the senator from Texas would win. But they won’t be held today. Therein lies the fundamental question at the heart of Cruz’s increasingly likely candidacy: Can he sustain the energy and passion that the tea party base of the GOP has for him over the next two-plus years?

2. Rand Paul: Cruz’s ascension as the face of the tea party movement may actually make it more likely that the senator from Kentucky winds up as the nominee. If Cruz is seen as the most ideological of the top tier of candidates, Paul can cast himself as the most electable hybrid conservative — someone whom conservatives can feel good about and who can expand the GOP’s shrinking electoral map.

1. Chris Christie: No one has had a better 2013. The only question for Christie is whether the power center of the party has moved so far toward the tea party that — with his focus on pragmatism over principle and winning over all else — he simply cannot be its choice.

The mainstream Republicans - the half asses - actually get behind someone like, well, Cruz. And instead of tearing him down they start pile driving timbers as groundwork under him behind the scenes.

Work with him; groom him; he could be our chosen spokesperson.

But alas I turn on the tube and I see Rove. I hear Jeb Bush. I hear the ridiculous nonsense about Christie (who could be more selfish then Clinton). (At least Clinton was more or less a dedicated Democrat - what has Christie done for Republicans?). These guys are not the answer. What great ideas has Bush ever come up with? Christie is not a big idea guy.

Sen. Rand Paul was on the hot seat on the Bret Baier Special Report a day or two ago. Still struggling with foreign affairs a bit (the balance between libertarian idealism and reality sort of stuff e.g. wrt Iran) but overall not bad. He does rather well with health care, speaking as he can as having been a practicing physician, and comes across young and hip better than Cruz. Don't get me wrong, I like Cruz a lot, but I'm not sensing him doing well against Hillary. RP is still not quite ready for a presidential campaign IMHO, but he should not be written off yet.

I agree with ccp on Christie and with Crafty on Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

There are things I don't like about Christie but he does comes across as ready to run, win and govern. As always, don't be fooled by the kid glove, media treatment that the more moderate candidates always get in the early going: McCain, Romney, and Christie now. The media won't be helping him in the general election.

I prefer executive experience on the resume but still like Marco Rubio for many reasons. I believe he can overcome his battle wounds with conservatives from the immigration debate and turn that into a political asset in 2016. He will be older and wiser in 2016 than he was in 2010 and 2012. In terms of charisma or whatever we choose to call it, he did win a swing state by a million votes with a Reagan-like message.

From my point of view the question is, who is the most conservative and the most articulate in advancing economic freedom while coming across as positive, non-threatening, even inspiring to moderates and swing voters.

Dick's radio show is excellent. I am not sure if it is national. He pissed me off with his dead wrong prediction for the '12 election. Yet he is extraordinarily insightful and does have very interesting talking points which I do not see or hear anywhere else. I think we should continue to listen to him.

Interesting history lesson on how Truman got elected. The democrats today are going to try the EXACT same strategy. Balkanize the country pull on female heart strings, play up the rights issue for Latinos Gays and all the rest. Then pass as many bills in the Senate. Maybe as Harkin calls change the rules to all legislation in the Senate, then sit back and call Congress the "do nothing Congress" as the economy flounders. All the while The grafter Clinton crew will be all over the media map drumming into our heads like the mediocre pop songs today over and over again how she is for getting things done and working with the other side. Bill will be out there reminding us how the economy was better (thanks to a boom in tech - all which crashed just months after he left) and how he crossed the aisle to fix Medicaid (he was kicking and screaming and did so only when the polls instructed him to).

Perhaps the Truman '48 election is the going to be redacted in '16. I am also going to post this on the 2016 thread where I think the analogy is quite strong.

I actually like Jindal though we noted how poor his performance of the State of the Union rebuttal a couple of years ago was .

But he might get better. If Cruz is as smart as reported he could improve. As for Paul he lacks something. He is just to clinical for me. He seems like a one trick guy. The debt the debt the debt. True as to its paramount importance but He can't seem to appeal beyond that. Yes he went to a Black College and was given a little credit for trying. His presentation to them was less than what even I could have done.

Rubio is very good. But he has to figure out how to deal with ruthless Democrats. Like obnoxious Schumer who stated he was "fond" of Rubio in a subtle condescending put down. (like he was speaking of his grandson).

"I actually like Jindal though we noted how poor his performance of the State of the Union rebuttal a couple of years ago was. But he might get better."

The criticism there was only about delivery. His handlers tell him he talks too fast, so he slowed it down too much. He IS better than that and has executive experience as a two term governor. Is a little bit underwater right now with his approval rating but that is coming up as good results start to come from his policies.

A successful, two term or more, conservative Governor of a swing state would be a nice qualification for a Republican nominee. One might argue that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio is almost a Reagan, but lacks the 8 years experience actually governing our largest state, a crucial distinction. Obama had no executive experience and look what happened. But on the other hand, now he has nearly 5 years real experience as President, Commander in Chief, Leader of the free world, and is still a disaster. Perhaps aimed at current front runner Chris Christie, Marc Levin points out that Lincoln had no executive experience and argues we should take a larger measure of the person:

"Lincoln is considered our greatest, if not our second greatest president by most. He was never a governor. He was never a senator. He was an extraordinary man, and he was a public man, and people knew much about him. The Lincoln-Douglas debates -- and those weren't the only debates! He gave some magnificent speeches too. But again, all that aside. My point is to categorize and say we have to have a person who's served as governor because they make executive decisions. Okay great.

And that'll be the strength of that candidate, should that candidate run. But thats not the test. The test is to get the right person. And the right person will make mostly the right decisions. Take a measure of the person. So if you have somebody who has been a governor, or just a garden variety Republican. Whether they're a big-government Republican or a RINO. I don't care if they've been a governor or not. I'm not interested. They have to come to the office or seek the office with a certain set of a principles and value that we share. Someone who is intelligent, confident, and articulate and knowledgeable, and has a capacity for the office. They've been governor, great. If they haven't, fine."

Gov. Chris Christie’s “bizarre behavior’’ in refusing to say he’ll support a possible GOP challenger to Gov. Cuomo next year could derail his chances to become president, state and national GOP insiders have told The Post.

In 2011, thousands of government employees and others, enraged by Gov. Scott Walker’s determination to break the ruinously expensive and paralyzing grip that government workers’ unions had on Wisconsin, took over the capitol building in Madison. With chanting, screaming and singing supplemented by bullhorns, bagpipes and drum circles, their cacophony shook the building that the squalor of their occupation made malodorous. They spat on Republican legislators and urinated on Walker’s office door. They shouted, “This is what democracy looks like!”

When they and Democratic legislators failed to prevent passage of Act 10, they tried to defeat — with a scurrilous smear campaign that backfired — an elected state Supreme Court justice. They hoped that changing the court’s composition would get Walker’s reforms overturned. When this failed, they tried to capture the state Senate by recalling six Republican senators. When this failed, they tried to recall Walker. On the night that failed — he won with a larger margin than he had received when elected 19 months earlier — he resisted the temptation to proclaim, “This is what democracy looks like!”

Walker recounts these events in “Unintimidated: A Governor’s Story and a Nation’s Challenge” (co-authored by Post columnist Marc Thiessen). Most books by incumbent politicians are not worth the paper they never should have been written on. If, however, enough voters read Walker’s nonfiction thriller, it will make him a — perhaps the — leading candidate for his party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

Act 10 required government workers to contribute 5.8 percent of their salaries to their pensions (hitherto, most paid nothing) and to pay 12.6 percent of their health-care premiums (up from 6 percent but still just half of what the average federal worker pays). Both percentages are well below the private-sector average. By limiting collective bargaining to base wages, Act 10 freed school districts to hire and fire teachers based on merit, and to save many millions of dollars by buying teachers’ health insurance in the competitive market rather than from an entity run by the teachers’ union. Restricting collective bargaining to wages ended the sort of absurd rules for overtime compensation that made a bus driver Madison’s highest paid public employee.

Act 10’s dynamite, however, was the provision ending the state’s compulsory collection of union dues — sometimes as high as $1,400 per year — that fund union contributions to Democrats. Barack Obama and his national labor allies made Wisconsin a battleground because they knew that when Indiana made paying union dues optional, 90 percent of state employees quit paying, and similar measures produced similar results in Washington, Colorado and Utah.

Walker has long experience in the furnace of resistance to the looting of public funds by the public’s employees. He was elected chief executive of heavily Democratic Milwaukee County after his predecessor collaborated with other officials in rewriting pension rules in a way that, if he had been reelected instead of resigning, would have given him a lump-sum payment of $2.3 million and $136,000 a year for life.

To fight the recall — during which opponents disrupted Walker’s appearance at a Special Olympics event and squeezed Super Glue into the locks of a school he was to visit — Walker raised more than $30 million, assembling a nationwide network of conservative donors that could come in handy if he is reelected next year. Having become the first U.S. governor to survive a recall election, he is today serene as America’s first governor to be, in effect, elected twice to a first term. When he seeks a second term, his opponent will probably be a wealthy rival who says her only promise is to not make promises. This is her attempt to cope with an awkward fact: She will either infuriate her party’s liberal base or alarm a majority of voters by promising either to preserve or repeal Act 10.

Walker is politely scathing — a neat trick — of Mitt Romney’s campaign, especially of Romney’s statement that “I’m not concerned about the very poor” because “we have a very ample safety net.” The imperative, Walker says, is to “help them escape the safety net.”

“Outside the Washington beltway,” he says pointedly, “big-government liberals are on the ropes.” No incumbent Republican governor has lost a general election since 2007. Since 2008, the number of Republican governors has increased from 21 to 30, just four short of the party’s all-time high reached in the 1920s. He thinks Republican governors are in tune with the nation. If reelected, he probably will test that theory.

"With so many people already speculating as to who might be the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s new book, Unintimidated, may be especially worth reading. It shows a man of real depth, and with an impressive track record that ought to overshadow the rhetoric of others, especially among the Washington Republicans. Unlike the Washington Republicans, Governor Walker has been tested and has come through with flying colors. His ending the labor unions’ sacred-cow status in Wisconsin — in spite of union thuggery in the capitol and death threats to himself, his wife, and his children — tells us what kind of man he is."

A tangential observation: some/most of us here disapproved when Obama failed to defend the DOMA. What say we now with this?

Good question. Our more centrist poster might see hypocrisy. I say criticize but play under one set of rules, theirs if they won't play under ours. NJ law was upheld without his support. DOMA was (partly) struck down without Obama-ites making insincere arguments in its defense.

This is the beginning of positioning for 2016. The anti-legal-gun-rights argument is not selling.

Don't agree with all of this. Few good points. OTOH the Dems only have Clinton. Once she is out of the way the Dems will also have to find new blood for the national scene.

****Who But Christie Can Beat Hillary?

By Myra Adams 3 hours ago The Daily Beast

As a Republican hoping that my party will retake the White House in 2016, I watched with intense interest as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie talked and talked and talked his way out of ”Bridgegate.”

The general consensus is that Christie did a decent job bemoaning his circumstances and keeping his cool, considering that the damaging political/ legal issues have only just begun.

But it was Christie’s "I am not a bully" persona that reminded me just how truly weak the entire bench of Republican presidential hopefuls is for 2016.

Sure, before “Bridgegate” and just after Christie’s victory in New Jersey there were a few national polls that showed Christie either tied or slightly leading Hillary Clinton. Indeed, dealing with Bridgegate could even make Christie a stronger candidate. However, national polls mean nothing three years before a general election. (Just ask the 2006-2007 presidential “front runner” Rudy Giuliani how that early status worked out for him.)

The problem for the GOP in 2016 goes so much deeper than whether Christie can overcome his first big crisis. (Sorry, unlike some Republicans I do not count Christie’s embrace of President Obama during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 as a hurdle that he needs to overcome.)

But what I am referring to is the Herculean task set before Christie of winning the 2016 Republican nomination given that the conservative wing and primary-controlling base voters are ferociously anti-Christie for numerous political and policy reasons, among them Medicaid expansion and gun control just for starters.

Here is a representative comment written by your average right-leaning Republican on RedState, the influential conservative website, in response to this negative piece about Christie’s prospects in 2016:

We don't need another McCain/Romney that's what Christie is in fact, he's further to the left than either of them. If Christie is the nominee then its time for a 3rd party because the base of the party isn't being represented.

Thus, here are the some possible Christie scenarios for 2016:

Christie manages to win the nomination and the GOP civil war officially begins.

Christie’s nomination launches a breakaway third party.

Christie’s nomination is the reason the base stays home.

Therefore, you can add “and Hillary wins” to the end of each sentence.

So if Christie runs and fails to get the nomination or decides against running at all who is left (I mean right) who can defeat Hillary?

The first name that comes to mind is Senator Rand Paul.

He has been working non-stop gaining national stature, dropping hints about running in 2016, but he is only a freshman senator and is also up for reelection in 2016. (Red flag alert: Freshman senator running for president.)

Under Kentucky state law Senator Paul can not run for both the U.S. Senate and president. Therefore, he must make a decision whether to run for president no later than early in 2015 -- in order to give another GOP Senate candidate time to launch a bid. But then, if things don’t work out on the presidential primary trail, Senator Paul –rather Dr. Paul— will be back practicing medicine under Obamacare.

A safer bet would be for Senator Paul to run for reelection, build up his “brand” both in the Senate and across the nation and then wait another four or eight years.

Then there is Ted Cruz of Texas, who won his Senate seat in 2012 and not up for reelection until 2018.

Cruz, although a laughing stock in the mainstream media, is extremely popular among primary base voters. So conceivably he could win the nomination and then the Democrats would likely “Cruz” to a Johnson vs. Goldwater-style landslide.

We’re not through with Texas yet because the word is Governor Rick Perry is planning on making a serious run for the 2016 nomination (at least more serious than his abysmal 2012 campaign.

Do not underestimate Governor Perry, because he has a record to run on that sings a real song of hope, change, and job creation. You can’t help but admire Perry as he touts his big Texas economic success story. However, my 2016 forecast for Perry is cloudy with a 10% chance of winning.

And what about former Arkansas Governor turned Fox News host, Mike Huckabee? He hinted late in 2013 that he might run again in 2016. But will he be willing to forsake his lucrative gig at Fox News to grind it out on the campaign trail? Probably not, but even talk about running is good for his ratings.

Don’t forget about Wisconsin congressman and former 2012 vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. He is the one who many in the party believe has the best chance of defeating Hillary. Well, they can keep dreaming because Ryan probably has his eye on a bigger job in the House.

Finally, you can forget about former golden boy, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida running for president in 2016. Rubio too is up for reelection that year and cannot be on the same ballot twice.

So back to my original question, “Who does the GOP really have who can lead the charge against Hillary in 2016?” (Who won’t tear apart the GOP in the process.) The answer did not appear in recent piece by Keith Koffler entitled: The GOP Needs a Conservative in 2016. Where Koffler makes the case why the GOP needs a conservative in 2016 but neglects to put a name to the need. Unfortunately the word “conservative” cannot appear on the ballot opposite Hillary Clinton.

Also worth noting is that, like Obama, both Paul and Cruz utterly lack in executive experience.

Huckabee may be worth keeping an eye on. His demeanor is soothing and he can sound quite calm and reassuring as he articulates his conservatism. His gig at FOX has given him a lot of practice at articulating his thoughts on a wide range of issues.

It won't be Hillary so we might as well start looking at the other Dems. I suggested Hickenlooper (Colo) but he will first be bogged down in a reelection contest. Enter two term Governor of Montana Brian Schweitzer, he turned down the chance to run for an open Senate seat and headed to Iowa. Move this guy up on the Hillary enemy list.

I just don’t think his administration [Pres. Obama] has been very good at doing things, about organizing things. It’s not just about the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. As governor I had four years to work with the Bush administration and four years to work with the Obama administration, and they’re just not good at getting things done.

Q: And how did Bill Clinton rank? Do you have any worries about the economic team than ran the place at the end of the ’90s, for example—about them coming back?

Clinton had a very good run. It was eight years of peace and prosperity. But do you recall what the music was, blaring, after they were elected? Fleetwood Mac, “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.” So what do we play next time? The Beatles, “Yesterday”? In England, a baby’s born and they know he’ll grow up to be king someday. We’re not England. We’re America.